The 2010 Elections for the Greek Regional Authorities

The 2010 Elections for the Greek Regional Authorities Andreadis I., Chadjipadelis Th. Department of Political Sciences, Aristotle University Thessaloniki Greece Paper for the 61st Political Studies Association Annual Conference "Transforming Politics: New Synergies" 19-21 April 2011 London, UK Panel:: GPSG Panel 3 Contemporary Challenges: Greece Beyond the Crisis Draft paper. Please do not quote without the authors' permission. Comments welcome at: john@polsci.auth.gr or chadji@polsci.auth.gr

Abstract Τhe recently enacted Greek Law for the new architecture of local and decentralized administration with the code name "Kallikrates" has introduced a number of significant changes for both primary and secondary level institutions of local administration. For instance, the new law includes provisions for the election of Regional Governors by the citizens for the first time in modern Greece. Also, Kallikrates brings back the rule requiring more than 50% of all valid votes for the successful election of a candidate to the public office. Finally, the local elections are held in the middle of the economic crisis. In this article we present a multifaceted analysis of the results of the 2010 Greek regional elections. Some aspects of the analysis are based on evidence obtained by comparing the votes for the regional council candidates with the votes of the 2009 parliamentary elections for the political parties that support these candidates. Further analysis is based on data obtained by voter positions on a series of issues and the analysis of the criteria used by Greek voters for selecting Regional Governors. The article concludes with discussion on how the economic crisis might have affected the voting behaviour of Greek citizens and implications for interested parties. Introduction After a fundamental reform of the local government system introduced by a recently enacted Greek Law for the new architecture of local and decentralized administration with the code name "Kallikrates", the first level of local government is constituted by 325 municipalities (replacing 1033 municipalities and communities), and the second level is constituted by 13 regions (replacing 54 prefectures) named peripheries. Regions are grouped to 7 decentralized administrations. Regions are run by a popular elected regional council, headed by the regional governor. The regions (peripheries) are divided into regional (peripheral) units. Each peripheral unit is headed by a regional vice governor. These new local governors were elected in November 2010. The first round of the elections was held on 7 November. In the regions where no candidate received more than 50 percent of the vote, a run-off election between the two leading candidates of the first round was held on 14 November 2010. Although candidates at local elections do not run under the official name of any party most of them are officially supported by one or more political parties and their electoral success or failure is reflected to the supporting political parties. The vote share of a party-affiliated candidate in the Regional elections is an indication for the power of the political parties at this period (Andreadis and Chadjipadelis 2009). During the campaign the opposition parties have tried to mobilise citizens into voting against PASOK-affiliated candidates in order to express their disapproval of the Memorandum that the Greek Government had to sign in order to qualify for the emergency loan of 110 bullion Euros by the European Commission, the European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund. During a period that the Greek government had to take austerity measures and launch a program of structural reforms, fiscal adjustments and deficit reduction in order to meet the targets of the Memorandum, anti-memorandum campaigns could target a large part of voters. The Prime Minister and PASOK leader George Papandreou has reacted by announcing that a serious electoral defeat of PASOK affiliated candidates would lead to snap parliamentary elections.

In most regions the candidates had the official support of one or more political parties. There are eight political parties which supported candidates in most of the thirteen regions: the centre-left Panhellenic Socialist Movement, (PASOK), the centre-right New Democracy (ND), the Communist Party of Greece (ΚΚΕ), the right-wing Popular Orthodox Rally (LAOS), the coalition of left political parties Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA), the party of Ecologist - Greens (Greens), the left-wing Democratic Left, (a political party that was founded in June 2010 by 4 MPs elected with SYRIZA), and the coalition of radical left political organisations Anticapitalist Left Cooperation for the Overthrow (ANTARSYA). s In Attica region ten candidates have competed for the post of the governor. PASOK supported the Prefect of Athens and ND a member of the Municipal Council of Athens. A former PASOK deputy who was expelled from the party's parliamentary group after refusing to vote for the country s bailout package (Memorandum of Understanding) from the European Union and International Monetary Fund, has contested as an independent candidate on an anti-memorandum platform. Another independent candidate was the former (2004-2008) chairman of SYN, the largest party of SYRIZA. SYRIZA supported an independent candidate, former member of Political Council of PASOK who also opposed the EU-IMF memorandum. The region of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace is home to a Muslim minority which represents an important part of the electorate. The voting behaviour of the citizens belonging to the Muslim minority plays an important role in the outcome of elections. In this region there were six candidates backed by the political parties: PASOK, ND, KKE, SYRIZA, Greens and ANTARSYA. PASOK and ND have chosen as candidates individuals who have been elected previously as prefects (PASOK-backed candidate in the Prefecture of Rodopi and ND-backed candidate in the Prefecture of Xanthi). LAOS and Democratic Left have not provided official support to any candidate. The Region of Central Macedonia is the second most populous after the region of Attica. In this region each of the eight aforementioned parties supported a separate candidate. ND has supported the Prefect of Thessaloniki. PASOK has supported a local PASOK MP and former deputy finance minister. Six candidates have run for the position of governor of the region of Western Macedonia. ND supported the Prefect of Kozani and PASOK a member of the Prefecture Council of Kozani. Democratic Left has given no official support to a candidate. SYRIZA and Greens backed a common candidate. Six candidates have competed for the position of governor of Epirus Region. ND and LAOS supported the elected with ND prefect of Ioannina. PASOK has backed an MP elected with PASOK in Ioannina. Greens and Democratic Left supported a common candidate. Eight individuals were in the race for the position of the governor of the Thessaly Region, one from each of the eight parties. PASOK supported the Prefect of Magnesia and ND supported the former ND MP of Larissa. In Central Greece six candidates have competed for the position of governor. PASOK supported the prefect of Viotia and ND backed the Prefect of Fthiotida. Greens and Democratic Left supported the

same independent candidate. LAOS supported an independent candidate. No candidate was backed by ANTARSYA. In the Peloponnese region eight candidates were in the race for the position of the governor. A former ND minister has run as an independent candidate backed by both PASOK and LAOS. Messenia prefect had the official backing of New Democracy. Finally, there was a candidate supported by the nationalist political organization Golden Dawn. In the Region of Western Greece, nine candidates competed for the post of the governor. PASOK supported an MP of Achaia and minister of Justice. ND supported the president of Technical Chamber of Aitoloakarnania. One candidate was backed by the nationalist political organization Golden Dawn. In the Region of Ionian Islands there were seven contesting electoral lists. ND and LAOS supported a former MP of Corfu elected with ND. SYRIZA and Greens supported the same candidate. Finally, a member of PASOK national council has contested as an independent candidate. Six candidates have run for the position of the governor of Northern Aegean Region. ND and LAOS supported the prefect of Lesvos and PASOK backed the mayor Mytilene. The Democratic Left has not announced its official support to any of the candidates. In the South Aegean Region five individual have contested as candidates. ND and LAOS supported a former Secretary General of the Region. PASOK backed the Dodecanese prefect. Democratic Left and ANTARSYA have not announced any backed candidates in this region. In the Region of Crete five candidates have competed for the position of the governor.pasok backed the Deputy Minister of Economy. ND selected a Lassithi MP, former Secretary of Defense. LAOS did not officially support any candidate. Greens and Democratic Left supported a common candidate. An independent candidate was supported by Dora Bakoyannis, who two weeks later announced the establishment of the new political party, Democratic Alliance. Helpmevote findings Helpmevote is a Voting Advice Application created for the regional elections of 2010 in Greece (Andreadis and Chadjipadelis, 2011). Greek citizens embraced helpmevote in a very positive way. From 18/10/2010 (formal opening of the application) until the Sunday of the election (7/11/2010) more than 28,000 users have used helpmevote to learn about the candidates of their region. Before the presentation of the results page (the page that includes the proximity of the user with each of the candidates) users had the option to fill-in a "personal data" form and provide information about them. Most of the helpmevote users have submitted the form after responding to most of the questions. The findings presented in this section are based on the responses of these individuals. The "personal data" form included the following "party attachment" question: "Based on your opinions and perceptions what is the political party you feel closer to today?" ANTARSYA was not included as a separate option in the list of possible answers because during the design phase of the questionnaire it was not known that ANTARSYA would support candidates in 11 of the 13 regions. Thus, for the analysis related to party attachment, the data used is reduce to people who have reported that

they are closer to one of the other seven political parties that were included as separate options in the questionnaire. From the people who consider themselves closer to one of the seven political parties and had the opportunity to choose a candidate proposed by their political party, 59.6% have followed the proposal, 16.3% have reported that they would vote a different candidate and the remaining 24.1% have not decided until the time they were asked to answer the question. Table 1 shows the distribution of voting behaviour per party attachment. Table 1. Distribution of voting behaviour per party attachment Party attachment Different Same Undecided ND 11,4% 21,6% 67,0% KKE 11,7% 13,5% 74,8% PASOK 12,6% 22,5% 64,9% LAOS 15,4% 19,8% 64,8% GREENS 20,0% 40,7% 39,3% Democratic Left 24,1% 30,0% 45,9% SYRIZA 28,0% 28,0% 44,0% The percentage of voters who have reported that they would vote for a different candidate than the candidate backed by their party is small in the groups of citizens who feel closer to ND, KKE, PASOK and LAOS. On the other hand, the probability of voting for a different candidate is higher among voters who are attached to the political parties Greens, Democratic Left and SYRIZA. In the same groups the percentage of undecided voters is also very large. As a result the percentage of party loyalists is under 50% for all of these three parties. Table 2. Distribution of voting behaviour per Region Region Different Same Undecided E. Macedonia-Thrace 6.3% 37.2% 56.6% N. Aegean 7.9% 27.8% 64.4% S. Aegean 9.2% 28.2% 62.6% W. Greece 9.7% 24.2% 66.0% W. Macedonia 9.8% 22.6% 67.6% Central Macedonia 11.5% 21.3% 67.2% Thessaly 11.7% 22.3% 65.9% Central Greece 12.0% 32.2% 55.7% Peloponnese 12.7% 31.1% 56.2% Crete 14.3% 23.8% 61.9% Epirus 14.8% 24.6% 60.6% Attica 22.9% 22.6% 54.4% Ionian Islands 23.4% 20.3% 56.3% Of course the distribution of voting behaviour is not uniform across the regions. Table 2 shows the distribution of voting behaviour for each region. In the regions of Ionian Islands and Attica the increased percentages of voters selecting a different candidate from the candidate backed by their party is justified by the existence of independent

candidates. In the Ionian Islands region 9.8% of the voters who feel close to PASOK have reported that they intend to vote for the independent candidate (affiliate to PASOK). As a result the overall the percentage of citizens who feel close to PASOK and choose a candidate who is not backed by PASOK in the Ionian Islands region increases to 21.6% while the corresponding percentage for PASOK voters in the whole country is 12.6% (Table 3). Regarding the interpretation of the findings in Attica there is an entire section below devoted to the analysis of the vote in this particular region. Table 3. Distribution of voting behaviour of PASOK voters per region Region Different Same Undecided N. Aegean 4.3% 28.6% 67.1% Peloponnese 4.7% 37.2% 58.1% Thessaly 6.0% 22.0% 72.0% W. Greece 6.9% 20.7% 72.4% E. Macedonia-Thrace 6.9% 25.4% 67.7% Central Macedonia 7.1% 18.3% 74.6% Crete 7.2% 16.7% 76.1% Central Greece 7.6% 29.4% 63.0% W. Macedonia 7.8% 22.8% 69.5% Epirus 9.4% 21.4% 69.2% S. Aegean 9.4% 22.6% 67.9% Attica 21.2% 22.5% 56.3% Ionian Islands 21.6% 21.6% 56.9% The above results indicate that some voters seem to use the endorsements by their political parties, as a voting cue when they choose the candidate they vote for the position of the governor of their region. This is consistent with previous research suggesting that voters who are not well informed about the candidates and their program, have to rely on information shortcuts as voting cues (Lupia, 1994). One of the most frequently reported voting cues is candidates' partisan affiliation (Rahn, 1993). But, is party affiliation the most important criterion for the Greek voters under study? Helpmevote users were asked to choose from a range of criteria, the single most important criterion they use when they evaluate candidates. Voters choose the candidate who will vote for the post of governor using as their main criterion: Sincerity and honesty of the candidate: 27.9% of voters, the personality, social and occupational characteristics of the candidate: 19.9%, knowledge of the problems by the candidate: 19.6%, and the program the candidate has presented for the region: 15.6%. Fewer voters consider as their main criterion the rest of the members in the candidate's electoral list (supporting team of the candidate), i.e. the candidate for the position of the vice governor and the candidates for the regional council seats (7.9%). Party support is used as the most significant criterion by 7.3% of the voters, while fewer than 2 out of 100 voters admit that their most important criterion is their personal relations with candidates (1.9%).

Sincerity - honesty Personality, social and occupational characteristics Knowledge of the problems The program Supporting team Party support My personal relations with candidates 0,0% 5,0% 10,0% 15,0% 20,0% 25,0% 30,0% Diagram 1. Criteria used for candidate choice Voters reporting that their main criterion is party affiliation are expected to choose the candidate backed by their political party, so only 7.1% of voters belonging to this group choose a different candidate. On the other hand there are voters whose main criterion for selecting candidates is their personal relationships with the candidates. In this group more than 3 out of 10 voters choose a different candidate than the candidate backed by their party. In the group of people whose main criterion is candidate's personality, social and professional characteristics, more than 2 out of 10 choose a different candidate (Table 4). Table 4. Distribution of voting behaviour per main criterion Different Criteria Undecided Same My personal relations with candidates 31,1% 18,6% 50,3% Personality, social and occupational characteristics 23,1% 25,3% 51,6% Sincerity - honesty 18,8% 30,9% 50,3% Supporting team 15,0% 29,0% 55,9% Knowledge of the problems 14,1% 27,6% 58,4% The program 13,4% 22,7% 63,9% Party support 7,1% 6,1% 86,9% Analysis of the vote in Attica The Region of Attica is the most important region of Greece due to its size. The elections outcome in this region plays an important role and it can determine the conclusions about winning and loosing political parties in the aftermath of the election. For parliamentary elections of 2009 in the five constituencies corresponding to Attica region nearly 2 million people have voted, representing 28.5% of the approximately 7 million ballots counted in the whole country. In the same region almost 450,000 fewer people have voted for the regional elections of 2010. The number of invalid (null and blank) ballot papers of regional elections is much bigger than the number of invalid ballots of the parliamentary elections (the number raised from about 55,000 to about 142,000). As a result the total number of valid ballots (due to abstinence and the increase of non-valid votes) is reduced by about 27%. Table 5

presents the outcome (share of valid votes) of the 2009 parliamentary elections and the 2010 regional elections in Attica Region. Table 5. Share of Valid Votes in Attica Region Share of Votes (2010) Supporting Party Share of Votes (2009) Sgouros 24.0% PASOK 40.3% Kikilias 20.5% ND 28.0% Dimaras 16.0% Independent (PASOK) Pafilis 14.4% KKE 10.2% Georgiadis 6.6% LAOS 7.5% Mitropoulos 6.2% SYRIZA 6.8% Diakos 4.0% Greens 4.0% Psarianos 3.8% Democratic Left Hagios 2.3% ANTARSYA 0.5% Alavanos 2.2% Independent (Left) While the parliamentary elections of 2009 in all five constituencies corresponding to the region of Attica PASOK garnered 40.3% of the valid ballots, the candidate backed by PASOK (Sgouros) garnered 24%. The votes of Sgouros (about 340,000) correspond to 44% of the votes gathered by PASOK for the parliamentary elections of 2009 (approximately 790,000). Sgouros had to deal with two major problems: a) the frustration of voters due to austerity policy that PASOK government was forced to implement after the signing of the Memorandum and b) an independent PASOKaffiliated candidate (Dimaras) who came third with 16% of the votes, and another PASOK-affiliated candidate who was supported by SYRIZA (Mitropoulos). The proportion of valid votes obtained by ND-backed candidate, (Kikilias: 20.5%) remained relatively lower than the proportion of ND in 2009 (28%) even though ND is in opposition. In absolute terms, the number of votes Kikilias gathered is equivalent to 53% of the votes obtained by ND in 2009. KKE-supported candidate (Pafilis) appears with 14.4% of valid votes which is equivalent to about 40% increment when compared to the percentage of the Communist Party in 2009 (10.2%). The votes obtained are approximately 200 000 for the Communist Party in 2009 and approximately 206 000 for Pafilis. Consequently, the significant increment of the percentage of the Communist Party is more a result of the important reduction of the denominator of the fraction (number of valid ballots) than a result of a growth of the numerator of the fraction (number of KKE voters). s supported by LAOS SYRIZA and Greens displayed rates that are close to figures gained by the respective parties in the parliamentary elections of 2009. However, in absolute terms, the votes collected by these candidates represent respectively 64%, 67% and 74% of the votes collected by their parties in the parliamentary elections of 2009. Finally, the supported by Democratic Left candidate (Psarianos) received 3.8% of the valid votes and the independent leftist candidate (Alavanos) who won 2.2% of the valid votes are expected to have won some of the voters who had voted SYRIZA in 2009 because both are ex-syriza MPs.

More than 32,000 ballots were counted in favour of the supported by ANTARSYA candidate (Hagios), while in the parliamentary elections of 2009 ANTARSYA had collected less than 10 000 votes, i.e. the number of votes for Hagios is more than three times the number of votes for ANTARSYA in 2009. Table 6 shows the distribution of voting behaviour of helpmevote users per reported party attachment. The first independent candidate, Dimaras (former PASOK deputy), gathers 12.8% of voters who do not feel that they can be expressed by a political party, 12.4% of voters who feel closer to PASOK, 12.3% of voters who feel closer to Ecologists - Greens, 11.6% of voters who feel closer to the Democratic Left, 8.6% of voters who feel closer to the ND and 7.6% of voters who feel closer to other parties. He appears with smaller penetration rates among the voters who feel closer to the Communist Party (6.7%), LAOS (6.3%) and SYRIZA (3.5%). The second independent candidate Alavanos, former president of SYN (the main component of SYRIZA) was chosen by 20.9% of voters who have reported that they are closer to SYRIZA. Table 6 Voting behaviour* per party attachment in Attica Region SP SN SK SL SS SG SD SA IL IP U PASOK 56,3% 0,8% 0,2% 1,5% 0,7% 0,7% 3,9% 0,2% 0,7% 12,4% 22,5% ND 2,2% 57,5% 1,3% 2,7% 0,9% 0,9% 0,7% 0,0% 0,2% 8,6% 25,0% KKE 0,5% 0,2% 78,6% 0,2% 0,7% 0,0% 1,2% 1,7% 1,7% 6,7% 8,2% LAOS 2,2% 4,1% 0,3% 69,0% 0,3% 0,6% 0,3% 1,3% 0,3% 6,3% 15,4% SYRIZA 1,5% 0,3% 3,2% 0,2% 36,1% 0,6% 4,6% 3,1% 20,9% 3,5% 26,0% GREEN 2,7% 0,4% 1,1% 0,8% 0,8% 33,3% 4,2% 1,5% 1,1% 12,3% 41,8% DEM. LEFT 4,5% 0,2% 1,6% 0,0% 2,7% 2,0% 52,6% 1,3% 1,3% 11,6% 22,1% OTHER 2,5% 1,4% 1,0% 3,3% 1,3% 0,5% 3,7% 31,3% 3,2% 7,6% 44,3% NONE 2,7% 1,5% 2,3% 1,6% 1,7% 0,7% 4,4% 1,2% 1,1% 12,8% 70,0% * Each column title corresponds to the name of the party supporting the candidate. SP: Supported by PASOK, SN: Supported by ND, IP Independent PASOK (Dimaras), SK: Supported by KKE, SL: Supported by LAOS, SS: Supported by SYRIZA, SG: Supported by Greens, GD: Supported by Democratic Left, SA: Supported by ANTARSYA, IL: Independent Left (Alavanos), U: Undecided Table 6 shows candidates' vote shares in each of the groups defined by self-reported party attachment at the time the question was asked. To estimate candidates' vote shares in each of the groups defined by party voted for the 2009 Parliamentary elections we use the VTR algorithm (Andreadis and Chadjipadelis 2009a). Andreadis (2009) argues that VTR algorithm and other ecological inference methods can be used successfully for the estimation of voter transition rates. The method has been used by (Andreadis and Chadjipadelis, 2010) to compare abstention rates between Greek Elections for the European and the National Parliament to provide estimates of loyalty and defection rates between parties (Andreadis and Chadjipadelis, 2009b). Chadjipadelis and Andreadis (2007) have used the method to estimate how Cypriots have voted in the 2004 referendum for the Annan Plan in Cyprus. According to the method estimates (presented in Table 7) the proportion of PASOK 2009 voters who did not appear to the polling stations for the regional elections is three times the corresponding proportion among ND 2009 voters. The abstention rate among PASOK 2009 voters is estimated at around 30%, while among ND 2009 voters the rate is circa 10%. In the group of ND 2009 voters 55.4% voted the candidate supported by ND. The estimated rate is increase at 61% if calculated in the subgroup of ND 2009

voters who have gone to the regional elections polls. One out of ten ND 2009 has chosen to vote for the PASOK-supported candidate and another one out of ten ND 2009 has chosen to vote for the independent candidate Dimaras. The estimate for the voter transition rate towards the candidate of LAOS is 2.3%. Finally, the number of blank votes and the number of transitions towards all other candidates add up to a figure not exceeding 9%. Table 7. VTR estimates for Attica Region ND 2009 PASOK 2009 * ND 2009 * PASOK 2009 Abstention 9.1% 31.6% Sgouros 10.9% 32.3% 12.0% 47.3% Kikilias 55.4% 1.3% 61.0% 1.9% Dimaras 10.2% 21.8% 11.3% 32.0% Pafilis 0.8% 2.7% 0.8% 3.9% Georgiadis 2.3% 0.2% 2.5% 0.4% Mitropoulos 0.9% 2.3% 1.0% 3.4% Other & Blank 7.1% 6.6% 7.9% 9.6% * Rates calculated among voters who have gone to the regional elections polls Most of voters who voted for PASOK in the parliamentary elections of 2009 (PASOK 2009 ) did not vote the PASOK-backed candidate. About on out of three PASOK 2009 voters have voted for Sgouros. If we remove the PASOK 2009 who has abstained from the regional elections, Sgouros vote rate is increased, but even in this subset less than one out of two voters chose the PASOK-backed candidate. With regard to the transitions of PASOK 2009 voters towards other candidates, about two in ten PASOK 2009 voters chose the independent candidate and former member of PASOK. Smaller transitions are observed towards the candidate endorsed by the Communist Party of Greece (2.7%) and the candidate supported by SYRIZA (2.3%). Finally, about 8% of PASOK 2009 voters chose another option; More than half of them have casted a blank vote. With regard to citizens who in the parliamentary elections of 2009 have voted for one of the three smaller parties represented in the Greek Parliament, estimates of the method are as follows: More than 95% of KKE 2009 voters have voted for the candidate of the Communist Party. The loyalty of LAOS 2009 voters in the face of Mr. Georgiadis has not exceeded 60%. SYRIZA 2009 voters were split between the official candidate (44%) and the candidate backed by the Democratic Left (37%). Conclusions In this study we investigated whether and how we can use the results of Greek regional elections to draw conclusions about the strength of Greek political parties. To answer this question we studied the criteria mentioned by voters as most important when they evaluate candidates for the position of the governor of their region. Voters who have reported that candidates' party affiliation is the most important criterion are few. However, the percentage of voters who choose a candidate that is different from the candidate backed by their party is small. One interpretation of this contrast might be that those do not report party support as their most important criterion, still use it as one of the important criteria for selecting candidates. Whatever the interpretation may

be, it seems that there is a strong correlation between the impact of a party and the electoral results of the candidate it supports. What is the conclusion from the results of regional elections for political parties; In the regional elections of 2010, PASOK-backed candidates won outright in the regions of Southern Aegean and Crete. In the second round PASOK won 6 other regions and ending with a total of 8 winners in 13 regions. It seems that PM's threat of snap polls has rallied the base of PASOK. The analysis of the electoral results in Attica region can provide many useful conclusions. Although PASOK-backed candidate was voted by only one in three PASOK 2009 voters, he managed to pass to the second round of the elections and eventually he has managed to dominate the candidate supported by ND. PASOK 2009 voters who have not voted for Sgouros have not moved massively towards another candidate. In fact most of the half of PASOK 2009 voters who have not voted for Sgouros did not choose another candidate; instead they have chosen to abstain or to cast non-valid votes. What was the electoral base of Dimaras; He won nearly two out of ten of PASOK 2009 voters. Some of those who voted for Dimaras remain attached to PASOK. Approximately 12% of those who feel close to PASOK have voted for Dimaras and possibly in the next general election they will return to PASOK. Dimaras could have won many votes among those who do not feel close to any party. During the election period an overwhelming proportion (70%) of this group of voters remained undecided. Some of them seem that they have abstained from the regional elections. The voting behavior of this group in the future can be decisive for the outcome of the following parliamentary elections. References Andreadis, Ι. 2009. The usefulness of ecological inference for the estimation of voter transition rates Paper presented at the 59th Political Studies Association Annual Conference "Challenges for Democracy in a Global Era", Manchester, UK, http://www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2009/andreadis1.pdf. Andreadis, Ι., and Th Chadjipadelis. 2011. Voting Advice Applications and their Impact on Elections. Paper presented at the 61st Political Studies Association Annual Conference "Transforming Politics: New Synergies", London, UK, http://www.psa.ac.uk/2011/uploadedpaperpdfs/355_216.pdf Andreadis, Ι., and Th Chadjipadelis. 2010. Comparison of elections for the European and the National parliament: The case of Greece. Paper presented at the 60th Political Studies Association Annual Conference "Sixty Years of Political Studies: Achievements and Futures", University of Edinburgh, UK, http://www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2010/19_834.pdf. Andreadis, Ι., and Th Chadjipadelis. 2009 a. A method for the estimation of voter transition rates. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 19 (2): 203-18. Andreadis, Ι., and Th Chadjipadelis. 2009 b. Parliamentary elections in Greece: Correspondence analysis and ecological inference. Paper presented at the 59th Political Studies Association Annual Conference "Challenges for Democracy in a Global Era", University of Manchester, UK, http://www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2009/andreadis.pdf.

Chadjipadelis, Th, and Ι. Andreadis. 2007. Analysis of the Cyprus referendum on the Annan plan. Paper presented at 57th Political Studies Association Annual Conference Europe and Global Politics, Bath, UK, http://www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2007/chadjipadelis.pdf. Lupia, Arthur. 1994. Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in california insurance reform elections. The American Political Science Review 88 (1) (Mar.): pp. 63-76. Rahn, W. M. 1993. The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science 37 (2): 472-96.